March 25-27, 2010
Mar 25 08:14 AUFC Harshly Criticized In WCCO Reality Check Mar 25 10:17 Bad Policy, Bad Politics Mar 25 13:10 Larry Haws's Jobs Priorities Mar 25 16:23 Obamacare Already Hurting Businesses Mar 26 11:33 Tarryl's Fundraising Letter Mar 26 10:12 Fisking President Obama's Speech Mar 26 15:00 DFL Stands for the Party of Misplaced Priorities Mar 27 07:02 Rep. Ellsworth Has Some 'splainin' To Do
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
AUFC Harshly Criticized In WCCO Reality Check
Earlier this week, I wrote a post about AUFC's ad buy against Michele Bachmann. After reading this article from WCCO's Pat Kessler , though, I need to write more about it. Here's the most important part of Pat Kessler's article:
Here's one passage:I'm betting that less than 5 ads each election cycle get characterized as major distortions. Each election cycle, WCCO characterizes a fair amount of ads as misleading. In this instance, WCCO not only labels the ad as having a major distortion in it, WCCO said this, too:
"Finally. Congress passed the health reform bill to rein in the power of the big insurance companies and guarantee that all Minnesotans can get the same kind of health insurance as members of Congress. But our Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann voted against that? Michelle Bachmann voted against giving you the same choices she gets."
This is a major DISTORTION of Bachmann's position .
IN FACT, Bachmann said she favors that part of the bill.If you're thinking that WCCO is coming down hard on AUFC, you're right. They are. As harsh as they've treated AUFC, here's the piece that hits them the hardest:
But she says she voted no because she opposes new taxes on businesses, fines on individuals, and a federal mandate to buy insurance.
But that's NOT THE WHOLE STORY.
Members of Congress, including Bachmann, DO have government subsidized health plans not available to the public.
The new health care law does, in fact, include a section requiring them to use health care plans created by this bill.
Here's what you NEED TO KNOW.This Reality check exposes AUFC as intellectually dishonest. They've also been exposed as a tool of the left. While rank-and-file union members come from all political persuasions, there's no arguing that union leadership is fiercely progressive.
Americans United for Change is a liberal group funded by labor organizations.
It is targeting 14 House Republicans nationwide who voted no on health care, including Bachmann.
But it's not targeting any of the 34 Democrats who voted no , including Minnesota Congressman Colin Peterson .
This doesn't help Tarryl Clark either. I'm not suggesting that she put them up to running these ads. I'm just suggesting that getting linked to the unions that fund these ads isn't the best way to create a positive image.
Americans United for Change isn't doing their candidates any favors by publishing this type of dishonest trash. Based on this information, I strongly suggest that we highlight any dishonesty we find in AUFC's ads while referring back to this scathing review.
Originally posted Thursday, March 25, 2010, revised 27-Mar 8:33 AM
No comments.
Bad Policy, Bad Politics
By passing the health care legislation, the Democrats have tipped on its head the old cliche that good policy makes for good politicking. By passing their health care legislation, the Democrats appear willing to test the theory of whether bad policy makes for difficult politicking.
Karl Rove thinks that's the result of the Democrats' passing health care legislation:
Democratic hopes that passing health-care reform will help them politically will be unfulfilled because ObamaCare only benefits a small number of people in the short run. Until the massive subsidies to insurance companies fully ramp up in 2017, this bill will be more pain than gain for most Americans.Rather than listening to the American people and rather than implementing the good ideas that Republicans have offered, Democrats insisted on passing this legislation. There's been a brief spike in President Obama's approval ratings but that's because Democrats came home. It isn't because independents started liking the Democrats' health care legislation.
For example, changes in insurance regulations in 2011 and two new mandates in 2014 that force everyone to buy insurance and require everyone to be charged a similar price regardless of age or health will cause insurance premiums to rise more than they would have otherwise. The 10 million people who have a health savings account will also be hurt starting in 2011. With each passing year after that, they will be able to put less away tax free for medical expenses.
The Democrats' giddiness is understandable but this polling will return them to reality rather quickly:
Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Robert Gibbs, President Obama and various liberal pundits have dared Republicans to run on the issue of repealing the bill. Three months ago, I wrote that that's what Republicans were planning on doing and that they would likely win on that issue because health care is a gigantic millstone around the Democrats' necks this year and in 2012.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.
In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they'd vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.
ObamaCare cuts $1.8 billion in support for Medicare Advantage this October, another $5.8 billion in October 2011, and an additional $9.2 billion right before the 2012 presidential election. This will increase premiums and reduce benefits for the 4.5 million people in the program.Gator-Aid will get stripped from the bill by the courts. It's one thing to get a special project in your district or state. It's quite another to have a program extended in Florida but nowhere else. Without that special deal, Bill Nelson is living on borrowed time politically speaking.
This information supports Mr. Rove's theories:
Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else. But 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repeal of the plan which requires all Americans to have health insurance.There's been a huge swing of senior citizens and young people away from the Democratic brand. Unless the Democrats change course and stop listening to their radicals, they'll get hurt alot in the next 2-3 election cycles. Right now, the people that dominate the Democrats' debates are radicals. If the Democrats don't drop their radical agenda, the American people will drop it for them.
Tens of millions of ordinary people watched the deliberations, studied the proposals, and made up their minds. Their concerns about spending, deficits and growing government power are not going away.Another thing that isn't going away is the hiring of 16,500 new IRS agents to force compliance with the employer and individual mandates. When the polling comes out on that, I'll bet that at least 60+ percent of those polled will strongly oppose that decision.
Republicans have a powerful rallying cry in "repeal, replace and reform." Few voters will want to keep onerous mandates that hit individuals and taxes that hobble economic growth. Rather than spending a trillion dollars on subsidies for insurance companies and Medicaid expansion, as ObamaCare does, Republicans should push for giving individuals the same health-insurance tax break businesses get, which would cost less.This time, Republican activists and Republican candidates will focus on those differences like Bill Clinton's laser beam. So-called moderate Democrats like Evan Bayh was in trouble until he decided he wasn't going to run for re-election. Blanche Lincoln is still in trouble, as are Harry Reid and Arlen Specter.
Once Republicans highlight their health care proposal, then run on that proposal, they'll win the fight and the war.
Posted Thursday, March 25, 2010 10:23 AM
No comments.
Larry Haws's Jobs Priorities
Last week, Rep. Larry Haws lamented Gov. Pawlenty's vetoing a number of projects from the DFL's Debt Bill. In fairness, I agree with Rep. Haws that Gov. Pawlenty shouldn't have vetoed funding for the I-SELF building on the SCSU campus because it's the type of facility that will add substantial value to St. Cloud's economy.
Here's a portion of Rep. Haws's e-letter update:
Governor Pawlenty used his line-item veto authority to eliminate aboutThis is proof that Rep. Haws still doesn't prioritize spending. Rep. Haws speaks of the jobs lost by not funding the Civic Center expansion but he's refused to speak about the spending implications of the Civic Center expansion. Specifically, Rep. Haws doesn't speak to the debt service that will be required by the DFL's oversized Debt Bill.
one-third of the construction projects and as many as 7,000 jobs from the State Legislature's public works bill. Vetoed projects important to St. Cloud included the architecture dollars ($42 million) dedicated to the proposed Integrated Science and Engineering Laboratory Facility at St. Cloud State University (SCSU) and expansion plans ($13 million) for the St. Cloud Civic Center.
It looks like the power of the pen is more powerful than our economic recovery. I think the Governor's veto is unfortunate for our unemployed construction works, students awaiting educational opportunities, and hundreds of private sector jobs in central Minnesota. The fallout of this signature will be an absence of want ads in St. Cloud for as many as 1,000 jobs that would have been created by these bonding projects. The pain is to central Minnesota, not to the author of bills who tried to bring more jobs to our community.
Shouldn't legislators first ask whether borrowing money to spend money on civic center expansions and building hockey arenas will hurt economic growth? Can't a respectable case be made that we'd be better off if we reformed Minnesota's tax code than by spending money on lower priority projects?
A big part of Minnesota's financial woes is that legislators haven't done a better job of setting the right spending priorities. Based on the size of the DFL's Debt Bill and the projects funded by it, it's obvious that the DFL can't be trusted to set responsible spending priorities.
Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again but expecting different results. Each year that the DFL has been in the majority in the House, the DFL leadership has put together major bonding bills, saying that they were that year's jobs bill. Each year, the bonding bills have created debt without creating the expected jobs.
It's time to stop the insanity. It's time that we did that by electing candidates like King Banaian, who would set the right spending priorities because he's in constant contact with local entrepreneurs and community leaders, and Tom Ellenbecker, who is part of the local business community.
That's the only way we'll set the right spending priorities. Expecting old dogs to perform new tricks under the same obstructionist leadership is the essence of insanity.
Posted Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:11 PM
No comments.
Obamacare Already Hurting Businesses
Based on this article , it's painfully obvious that Obamacare is inflicting pain into the economy but it isn't helping the American people:
Deere & Co (DE.N) and Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) said they are expecting a combined $250 million in charges this year as a result of changes to the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system that President Barack Obama signed into law this week.Naturally, the Obama administration is trying to spin this to avoid taking a hit politically:
But Commerce Secretary Gary Locke criticized those estimates as premature. The final law is still being tweaked, with the Senate expected to send a revised version of the landmark legislation back to the House of Representatives later on Thursday after eliminating two minor provisions.Secretary Locke can tweak the bill all he wants but that won't erase the major tax penalties that the bill will inflict on corporations. A little tweake here or there won't shrink the employer or individual mandates. Tweaking the bill won't eliminate the tax increase on medical device manufacturers.
"A lot of the regulations on how this will affect big business haven't even published yet; so for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible," Locke said in an interview on CNBC business television.
"It didn't take 48 hours before the tax increases in this health care bill started to hit manufacturers and other employers," said Representative Dave Camp, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "With over one-half trillion dollars in new taxes, the health care bill is the single largest tax increase in American history. It is a government takeover of health care that families cannot afford and our economy cannot afford."Rep. Camp is exactly right. The Democrats' health care legislation strips out subsidies that help companies provide prescription drug coverage to their employees. This was a predictable result of the tax increases on 'evil big business'. This didn't surprise anyone who paid attention.
At issue in Deere's and Caterpillar's forecasts is a provision of the health care reform package that makes a subsidy paid to companies to provide prescription drug coverage to their employees taxable; previously this benefit had not been taxed.
According to this WSJ article , Obamacare will hurt other businesses, too:
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers.Let's hear this administration attempt to defend Obamacare against the backdrop of Obamacare's tax increases causing 1,000 layoffs at Medtronics. If the administration plans on making that pitch in person, I'd recommend their representative wearing a flack jacket to the presentation.
Medtronic isn't the only medical device manufacturer considering layoffs :
"This bill is a jobs killer," said Ernie Whiton, chief financial officer of Chelmsford's Zoll Medical Corp., which employs about 650 people in Massachusetts. Many of those employees work in Zoll's local manufacturing facility making heart defibrillators. "We could be forced to (move) manufacturing overseas if we can't pass along these costs to our customers," said Whiton.There's plentiful proof that there is a tax increase on medical device manufacturers. Within 48 hours of signing the bill, Medtronic and Zoll Medical have said that laying off 1,650 people combined is possible. That's before talking about another little tax increase that the Obama administration doesn't want us to know about:
Mr. Reed specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion is equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan and will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209.The direct result of this tax increase is a shift of retired employees from their companies' plans onto Medicare's persciption drug plan.
QUESTION: Did the CBO factor this into their scoring of the Democrats' health care legislation? I'm betting that they didn't.
Then there's the dilemma facing companies that hire seasonal workers:
The bill signed into law on Tuesday by President Barack Obama fines businesses that do not provide health insurance to full-time employees who work more than 120 days a year. The assessment is $2,000 per employee, which, according to SkiNH lobbyist Bruce Berke and group president Alice Pearce, could mean as much as $1 million in fines to the big ski resorts, some of which hire as many as 500 seasonal workers.I talked about the possibility of the Democrats' health care legislation triggering the next round of layoffs. Now that prediction appears significantly closer to being reality.
Also affected would be any business that hires on a seasonal basis, and, like most nationally, do not offer health insurance.
Pearce said the original Senate health care bill contained only a $750-per-employee fine, which kicked in after a worker was employed 150 days. That exempted most ski areas, she said. But the House tightened it to $2,000 and 120 days.
Speaker Pelosi talked about the Democrats' health care legislation as being a jobs bill. That's insulting. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, the articles listed above indicate that the pain inflicted by the Democrats' health care legislation will be deep, sustained and widespread. Despite all that, President Obama dared Republicans to repeal the Democrats' health care legislation :
In his speech, he mocked Republicans for suggesting that passage of the bill means "Armageddon" and dared them to run on a platform of repealing the bill, as many have vowed to do.I'd dare President Obama or HHS Secretary Sebelius to tell the people working for Zoll Medical or Medtronic whose jobs might soon disappear that it's a sunny day with birds chirping. I'm betting that Medtronic's employees won't have the sunny disposition that President Obama has because they're dealing with the harsh realities of the bill. They can't afford to be oblivious to the affects of the Democrats' health care legislation.
"Now that we passed it, they're already promising to repeal it," he said. "They're actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November. And my attitude is, go for it."
"If these Congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest," he added.
The president said cable news talking heads are still "shouting about the end of the world" and said that Republicans are offering disingenuous suggestions that the bill means the "end of freedom as we know it."
"So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or cracks opening around the earth," he joked. "Turns out it was a nice day. Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall. People still had their doctors."
I'd dare President Obama or HHS Secretary Sebelius to tell the John Deere or Caterpillar employees who might lose their job as a result of the Democrats' health care legislation that the sun is shining and the birds are chirping.
If they decide to do that, I'd just recommend that they wear a flack jacket when they're making that speech.
Originally posted Thursday, March 25, 2010, revised 29-Jul 1:37 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 25-Mar-10 08:23 PM
Nancy Pelosi was right. We were only going to find out what was in this bill after its passage.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Mar-10 10:09 PM
Rex, In this instance, that isn't a good thing. It's time we ran these egomaniacs out of DC.
Tarryl's Fundraising Letter
This is one of those days that I love being a blogger. It's such a target-rich environment. It's no secret that Tarryl Clark sent out a fundraising letter prior to Sarah Palin's fundraiser for Michele Bachmann. Larry Bivins, the St. Cloud Times Washington Correspondent, wrote a brief post about the fundraising letter. Here's a portion of Tarryl's letter:
"In a few weeks, Sarah Palin will parachute into Minnesota to raise money for my opponent, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann," the solicitation reads. "As a congresswoman, Bachmann has shown time and time again that she is more interested in pursuing her personal agenda and building her national celebrity than she is in serving the people she represents, much like Sarah Palin."To the loyal readers of this blog, I promise that Tarryl won't get a free pass when she makes these types of comments again. Tarryl insists that Michele "is more interested in" "building her national celebrity than she is in serving the people she represents" as though Tarryl isn't interested in pursuing her own personal agenda.
Does anyone think that Tarryl will stop pursuing the unions' agenda if elected to the U.S. House of Representatives? If you think that, just look at who's endorsed her:
AFL-CIO Endorses State Sen. Clark for U.S. CongressThese endorsements came literally days after Tarryl announced her candidacy. These unions' leadership teams couldn't have sought the opinions of the rank-and-file members of their respective unions in that short a period of time because those union members wouldn't have had the time to compare Tarryl with Maureen Reed.
Laborers Endorse Tarryl Clark for Congress
AFSCME Endorses Tarryl Clark for Congress
Unite Here Endorses Tarryl Clark for Congress
Carpenters endorse Tarryl Clark for U.S. Congress
AFSCME Council 65 endorses Clark
Until now, Tarryl has portrayed herself as the ultimate public servant steeped in central Minnesota's values. Today, that image gets exposed.
This week, the Progressive Electorate, a far left organization highlighted Tarryl's campaign .
EMILY'S List, an organization committed to abortion on demand policies, has a page devoted to Tarryl Clark's campaign . Here's a little taste of what EMILY'S List represents :
EMILY's List is committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women : recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.I'm betting that being a pro-choice candidate in Minnesota's Sixth District isn't helpful. The fact that Tarryl frequently posts on the Daily Kos , that bastion of progressivism, says alot about who Tarryl really is: a radical progressive, not the centrist she portrays herself as.
It's safe to say that Tarryl better represents Andy Stern's, Markos Moulitsas' and Ellen Malcolm's priorities than she represents Central Minnesota's priorities .
Tarryl likes talking about Michele Bachmann not representing MN-6's priorities. The reality is Michele will fight for lower taxes, real health care reform, energy independence and small businesses every day she's in the U.S. House of Representatives .
Compare that with Tarryl representing the interests of the SEIU leadership, EMILY'S List and one of the most far left progressive blogs in the nation .
The question that will be posed to the people of MN-6 is which lady's priorities best fit MN-6's priorities. I'm betting that there are more small businesses, TEA Party activists and pro-life Catholics that support Michele than there are abortion-on-demand advocates and progressive lefties that support Tarryl.
Finally, it's true that Tarryl talks a great centrist game. There's no denying that. Unfortunately for her, the problem is that she doesn't vote centrist. Good luck running with that millstone weighing you down, Tarryl.
Posted Friday, March 26, 2010 11:33 AM
No comments.
Fisking President Obama's Speech
I tried reading President Obama's speech without critiquing it but I can't not say something. Let's start here:
Three years ago, we made a promise. That promise has been kept. Of course, of course, over the last year, there's been a lot of misinformation spread about health care reform. There's been plenty of fear-mongering, plenty of overheated rhetoric. You turn on the news, you'll see the same folks are still shouting about there's going to be an end of the world because this bill passed. (Laughter.) I'm not exaggerating. Leaders of the Republican Party, they called the passage of this bill "Armageddon." (Laughter.) Armageddon. "End of freedom as we know it."There's a simple explanation for that reaction in DC, Mr. President. In DC, everything is fine because you've expanded government dramatically. Rumors exist that DC's nemployment rate has dropped. Here in the Heartland, where people have to rely on innovation and entrepreneurship and access to capital, things are difficult, thanks in large part to your bailouts and your paying off political allies.
So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there any, (laughter), asteroids falling or, (applause), some cracks opening up in the Earth. (Laughter.) It turned out it was a nice day. (Laughter.) Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall. People still have their doctors.
From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers, they're going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn't. They'll have to finally acknowledge this isn't a government takeover of our health care system. They'll see that if Americans like their doctor, they'll be keeping their doctor. You like your plan? You'll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you. Three months from now, six months from now you're going to look around. You're going to be sitting in a doctor's office reading through the old People magazines. (Laughter.) And you'll say, hey, this is the same doctor, same plan. It wasn't Armageddon.What this legislation isn't is reform. What this legislation contains are tax increase after tax increase, including tax increases that have medical device manufacturers thinking about laying people off (Medtronic) or moving overseas altogether (Zoll Medical). For the bigger companies, like John Deere and Caterpillar, they're expecting to have their tax burden increase by $150,000,000 and $100,000,000 respectively.
That doesn't sound like reform.
That sounds like a straight pathway to higher unemployment at a time when unemployment is already approaching 10 percent and where the number of people who've been unemployed more than eight months remains high.
As for people liking their plan keeping their plan, President Obama knows that won't happen considering the fact that HSAs don't qualify as a qualified health insurance policy. This isn't a slip of the tongue. It's President Obama lying. He knows it's a lie because people have questioned him on this specific subject.
So if you already...if you already have insurance, this reform will make it more secure and more affordable.Mr. President, I'd love hearing your explanation on how the Democrats' health care legislation makes insurance more affordable. I know about the subsidies but that doesn't make health insurance more affordable. The subsidies just pass the bill onto the people getting taxed to pay for the subsidies. That's often referred to as robbing Peter to pay Paul. That might put a smile on Paul's face but it'll likely make Peter upset.
We'll start reducing the waste in the system, from unnecessary tests to unwarranted insurance subsidies.Mr. President, how will the Democrats' legislation reduce the number of unnecessary tests without lawsuit abuse reform? Let's admit that you didn't include real lawsuit abuse reform because Democrats can't do anything that might upset the trial attorneys lest they stop writing checks for campaign contributions.
The most important lesson people must learn is that President Obama often uses words and phrases like that for effect but his legislation never delivers on his words. That's why Jim Geraghty rightly says that President Obama's campaign promises come with an expiration date.
Starting today, starting today, small business owners can sit down at the end of the week, look at their expenses, and they can begin calculating how much money they're going to save. And maybe they can even use those savings to not only provide insurance but also create jobs. This health care tax credit is pro-jobs, it is pro-business, and it starts this year, and it's starting because of you.Mr. President, Are you allergic to the truth? Medtronic certainly qualifies as a small business and they're thinking about laying off 1,000 as a direct result of the health care legislation, passed without Republican support, you just signed. If this legislation is so pro-small business, why is Zoll Medical Corp. thinking about moving its manufacturing operations overseas?
And once this reform is implemented, then health insurance exchanges are going to be created. This is the core aspect of this bill that is going to be so important to Americans who are looking for coverage.Mr. President, why would these exchanges improve competition? Each state's insurance commissioner has the responsibility to enforce that state's laws because each state has its own unique set of mandates. Insurance companies choose to not offer insurance in certain states because of those mandates, thereby reducing competition. What's worse is that the Democrats' health care legislation carries with it very onerous mandates.
Unless the Obama administration, through the HHS Secretary, mandates the various insurance companies to compete in each state, there's no way to create competition.
President Obama can talk till we're blue in the face but the American people don't like the Democrat's legislation because the tax increases and the various mandates in the Democrats' legislation will kill jobs and increase health care expenses.
The reason I know the Democrats' legislation increases health care expenditures is because manufacturers wouldn't move their operations overseas if they thought the Democrats' health care legislation would lower their health care expenses.
For all of President Obama's spinning, the Democrats' health care legislation is still unpopular :
"The margin prior to the vote was basically people disapproving of the bill by 10 to 12 points," says Republican pollster David Winston. "What I've now seen is that the gap has closed a bit, but that you still have more negative than positive."In other words, the Democrats' health care legislation is still a millstone around the Democrats' necks heading into the 2010 midterm elections.
And that is after the White House has had most of the week to drive a positive message. "Even after this significant push, they still can't flip the numbers," says Winston.
Posted Friday, March 26, 2010 10:21 AM
No comments.
DFL Stands for the Party of Misplaced Priorities
I can no longer accept as fact that the DFL's priorities represent Minnesota's priorities. I'm basing that opinion on this information from Mark Buesgens' weekly e-letter update:
This Monday, the House passed its first budget bill of the 2010 session. Facing a $994 million deficit this year and a $5.8 billion hole in the next budget cycle, the majority party's bill represents an incomplete strategy reliant on federal money and one-time measures. It covers less than a third of the current deficit and lacks the meaningful job creation initiatives Minnesotans want and need.Starting with the first week of the 2007 session, the DFL has used parliamentary gimmicks and Speaker Kelliher's rulings to protect vulnerable legislators from casting votes that their special interest allies don't approve of. That first week of the 2007 session, Speaker Kelliher ruled that Laura Brod's tax cuts didn't belong in a tax bill, thereby sparing her big freshman class of having to vote against popular tax cuts.
Like the Democrats in Washington, their bill showed the continuation of misplaced priorities and failed leadership that has driven the budget mess in the first place.
While the bill contained some cost reductions, it left out the real reforms we need for long term savings and structural change. One week after calling for Republican ideas, Rep. Sertich and his colleagues resoundingly rejected nearly all of our solutions to promote a balanced budget and job creation. They refused to vote on measures including a state government workforce reduction, calling plans to restructure government not applicable to a bill funding government. Their bill was crafted with little public notice or input, and their tactics represented partisan politics at its worst.
It sounds like the DFL is still operating from the same playbook. It's apparent that they're refusing to reform government or prioritize government spending. We can't afford to keep funding a 20th Century model of government.
Mike Beard sounded a similar note in his e-letter update:
Leadership had no trouble putting together a plan recently to borrow $1 billion for bonding, but they are unable or unwilling to make the tough decisions needed to balance the billion dollar deficit now. My House Republican colleagues and I proposed a number of amendments to keep the state from future budget troubles but most were blocked and not even voted on.The key principle to take away form this is simple. The DFL leadership (I use the term leadership loosely) can put together spending bills together without hesitation and without prioritizing but they can't put together a bill that corrects the budget deficits that they created. Let's remember that the DFL leadership didn't put a balanced budget together last year. Their final budget bill had a projected end-of-biennium surplus of $3,000. That's tinier than statistically insignificant in a $30,000,000,000 biennial budget.
Here are some of the amendments:
Permitting Efficiency-would end lengthy delays by requiring business permits to be issued or denied within 150 days of submission (BLOCKED)
Sunset Commission-commission would review government agencies and programs for inefficiency and duplication and make recommendations for consolidation or closure (BLOCKED)
Reasonable Public Employee Compensation-would set compensation of public employees at levels comparable to the private sector (BLOCKED)
15x15 Initiative-would reduce the size and cost of state government by 15 percent by 2015 (BLOCKED)
These reforms would make government operate more efficiently and restrain ever-increasing government spending.
Put differently, the DFL is expert at spending recklessly but they're utterly inept in putting a responsible budget together that reflects the priorities of Minnesota's families and small businesses.
Here's what Laura Brod wrote in her weekly update:
On March 22, the Minnesota House approved a bill that partially addresses the state's $993 million budget deficit. But instead of beginning the process of reforming government and putting people back to work, the House majority threw a plan together that not only fails to solve the entire deficit, but fails to create the jobs this state so desperately needs.The first common thread through Mark Buesgens', Mike Beard's and Laura Brod's updates is that they're thinking of ways to put Minnesota's budget on a path of sustainable fiscal sanity.
The bill cuts nearly $300 million from every area of state government except health and human services and K-12 education, the two areas that make up 75 percent of state spending. Almost one-third of this amount comes in cuts to Local Government Aid programs. Unfortunately the House majority has not told us how it will solve the majority of this deficit problem, or how HHS or K-12 cuts may factor into their
final solution.
To help avoid some of these reductions, House Republicans offered several amendments to the bill that would have reformed government and spent state tax dollars in a smarter way. These included potentially privatizing some government assets like the Lottery or Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport; reducing LGA for the Twin Cities and spreading the money throughout towns in rural Minnesota; and filing a lawsuit to challenge the federal government's authority to force people to buy health insurance.
The second common thread in their updates is that the DFL has refused to reform government, set priorities that reflect Minnesota's priorities or that save Minnesota's taxpayers money.
That's inexcusable!!! Minnesotans are fed up with the DFL leadership voting against Minnesota's families' interests but voting for their special interest allies wish lists.
There's only one way to correct that: We need new leadership in the Minnesota legislature. The DFL's leadership has been taking us in the wrong direction since they've been the majority party. That's got to stop this November. We can't afford more of the DFL's more-of-the-same governance.
Originally posted Friday, March 26, 2010, revised 30-May 1:33 AM
No comments.
Rep. Ellsworth Has Some 'splainin' To Do
According to Sen. Dan Coats, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, (D-IN), has some explaining to do to Indanans. Here's what Sen. Coats thinks Rep. Ellsworth needs to explain:
Why would someone elected to represent Hoosiers in a congressional district where the people are suffering in this economy, and who are strongly pro-life, vote in favor of President Obama's job-killing, deficit-inflating, tax-raising bill?When Sen. Bayh announced his retirement, he understood that he'd lost his credibility as a fiscal conservative by voting twice for the Senate health care legislation and twice for the Democrats' failed stimulus bill twice. Rep. Ellsworth has followed in Sen. Bayh's footsteps by putting a higher priority on pleasing Speaker Pelosi's than on representing his Indiana constituents.
In the instance of Congressman Brad Ellsworth from Evansville, the answer to this question is even more elusive when you consider that he caved into his national party bosses well before a dubious deal was cut by a colleague of his to trade protection of the unborn for an executive order on federal funding of abortions. Congressman Ellsworth must now explain convincingly to Hoosiers why he voted for higher taxes, more government intervention and for radical liberal policies that Americans have rejected time and time again.
That's political suicide in a year when TEA Party activists are upset that Washington isn't listening to them. There's a reason why TEA Party activists are growing in numbers and intensity. (BTW, to those that think that the Democrats can now recover from passing health care, two words leap to mind: wishful thinking.)
This isn't a business-as-usual election cycle. Most years, passing controversial legislation might get a handful of incumbents defeated. Most years, ignoring the will of the people might get a handful of incumbents defeated. This year, passing controversial legislation of this magnitude on a party line vote will get a couple dozen Democratic incumbents defeated.
I was particularly shocked to learn about his decision to vote in favor of Obamacare because I've spent a lot of time in his district in southwestern Indiana. The good people there, who twice helped elect me to the Senate, want to hear about an economic recovery plan that does not include more deficit spending and higher taxes. They want affordable and targeted medicine for a health care system that needs Washington to treat only its real symptoms.During my interview of Mike Pence, we talked about Mitch Daniels' plan, which relies heavily on HSAs. Indianans love the plan. The Democrats' health care legislation essentially eliminates HSAs. Still, that's what Rep. Ellsworth voted to eliminate. That isn't representing your district. That's cowtowing to K Street's lobbyists and Speaker Pelosi.
That's enough to push Rep. Ellsworth into an early retirement. That type of voting will eliminate alot of Democrats this and next cycle.
Posted Saturday, March 27, 2010 7:06 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Mar-10 11:50 AM
Senator Dan Coats? What state's he represent?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-10 01:59 PM
He's running against Ellsworth for the Indiana Senate seat currently occupied by Evan Bayh. Bayh replaced Coats in the Senate.
